Back in the 1940s the Trotters were the best basketball team in the world. Every year they played the NBA champs in Madison Square Garden two out of three and won. They were created by one Abe Saperstein back before World War and toured the country every year sometimes even playing in swimming pools and barns but almost always winning. The names of their stars, Goose Tatum, Marcus Hanes, and Ted Strong were famous. The trotters had three teams, one toured the East coast, another the West, and a third the Midwest.
When I was a kid, they came to our town Bellingham Washington every year and became very popular all around the world. They clowned around a lot, but still managed to win almost every game. They made fun at the opponents’ expense and the crowds loved it. I saw the Trotters three times in my youth and our local team won all three games. As it happened there was a small professional league in the Pacific Northwest at that time and our town had the best team, The Bellingham Fircrest.
Our team was led by a former All-American player named Gale Bishop. As the star of the Washington State University team he had once scored 50 points in a Madison Square Garden game. Two of our players had been stars on our local college team, and two had played at The University of Oregon and the University of Washington. In short, we had an excellent team. The first year I saw the Trotters our team beat them seemingly easily. The next year the trotters imported several players from their two other teams so as to guarantee a victory.
However, each of those years our Fircrest team beat the Trotters in overtime. Abe Saperstein himself came to the game and declared Bellingham “The Flatbush of basketball”, alluding to the crowds at Ebbits Field in Brooklyn, because our fans were so loud and raucous. The third year our team had hired a former Trotters player, Ziggy Marcel to play for us. He seemed to know all the plays the Trotters tried to run. They still did their tricks and got lots of laughs, but we were proud to win. It was amazing to have beat the Trotters three years in a row.
My own special connection here was on this wise. I was the waterboy for a city league team and their captain also handled details for the Fircrest team. He asked me if I would like to be waterboy for the Trotters when they came to town. Of course, I was overjoyed by the opportunity to be waterboy for the Trotters. You must understand that these guys were the only Black people we had ever seen in person. There were no Negroes in our town. Not only was it a great honor for me, but it was a bit weird, if not scary, to have this opportunity.
I had, of course, read all about the Trotters and seen them play in newsreels and had even seen a promotional movie they had made. But to sit on their bench and provide towels and drinks for them was way beyond my imagination. The fellow who sat next to me was the blackest person I had ever seen. His name was Robert Hall and he was a new player. His skin was absolutely pure black!! I still consider it one of the great moments of my young life to have been the waterboy for the Trotters. And once again our team managed to beat them.

Many of those reading these blogs will have heard of Charles Hartshorne, Alfred North Whitehead’s most well-known student and chief propagator of Whitehead’s philosophy. Well, the confluence of the three of us came about on this wise. At a meeting of The Southern Society of Philosophy of Religion many years ago Professor Hartshorne and I both presented papers. In mine I sought to explain why I think that the term “pansyntheism” is more helpful than Hartshorne’s well-known term “panentheism” in explaining the intricacies of Whitehead’s theological perspective.
After I had delivered my paper Professor Hartshorne ran up to me in a very excited manner and exclaimed: “Pansyntheism is the right word. Why didn’t I think of that?” Thank you ever so much for pointing it out.” And off he ran to discuss the issues involved with some of his friends and students. Before going any further I should stop and explain the difference between these terms that Hartshorne had in mind. It get’s a little sticky but please bear with me.
In trying to explain Whitehead’s view of the relationship between God and the world, Hartshorne had used the Greek terms ‘pan’ for “all”, ‘theos’ for God, and the particle ‘en’ for “in”. The idea was that the term ‘panentheism’ best explains how God and the world are interrelated. God is neither identical nor completely separate from it. This term had become the standard way for philosophers to express this crucial idea in Whitehead’s “Process Philosophy” (cf. his Process and Reality), even though it was actually Hartshorne’s terminology.
In my paper I had suggested that the Greek term “en” unfortunately still suggests that somehow the world is entirely included in God. I went on to suggest that the particle ‘syn’, meaning “with”, as in “synthesis”, “symbiotic”, and “synthetic” would better fill the bill. This term focuses the idea of mutual interaction without entailing any suggestions of “inclusion.” Thus the relationship between God and the world is to be seen as a mutually “inter-relationship” of interaction.
Let me offer a translation of Paul’s familiar words of encouragement to the Christians at Rome in Romans 8:28 as a way to clarify my main point. In the traditional King James translation this verse reads: “And we know that all things work together for God to them that love God, to them that are called according to his purpose.” Fortunately, we now know that this translation is incorrect. The modern versions correct this mistranslation so as accurately to convey the real meaning of the Greek.
Focus on “God cooperates for good with those who love God and are called according to his purpose.” In the Greek the subject of the sentence is not “all things” but rather it is god who co-operates with all things bringing good to come about in the world. We human beings are, of course, part and parcel of these “all things” if we choose to work together with God to make good come about.
One final note. The Greek verb translated here to describe God’s activity is synergetei, literally “cooperates”. Thus, God is not presented as being in total control of, but as working with, the world, along with those who pitch in to help. My guess is that it is this insight, focused in the notion of symbiosis, that so animated Professor Hartshorne that day. The exchange of interactive energy seems to be the point. Moreover, he certainly embodied that interactive energy that day on which we met.
The coming together of the divine spirit with the ongoing activity of the cosmos in eternal creative formations is driven by a synergy that continually animates both realities. I submit that that the positive aspects of this process understanding of God’s relation to the world, especially human beings, are better served by substituting the term “syn” for “en”. I do think professors Whitehead and Hartshorne would have agreed.